June 26, 2014

Post puzzles for others to solve here.

Re: June 26, 2014

Postby Sudtyro2 » Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:39 pm

Code: Select all
 *-----------------------------------------------------------*
 | 67   *56    4     | 2     1     9     | 78    3    *568   |
 | 3    *569   17    | 4     8     57    | 2     157-9*56    |
 | 179   8     2     | 57    6     3     | 79    1579  4     |
 *-------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
 | 2     7     5     | 9     4     6     | 1     8     3     |
 | 8     1     6     | 57    3     57    | 4     2     9     |
 | 4     3     9     | 1     2     8     | 5     6     7     |
 *-------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
 | 679  @69    37    | 8     5     1     | 3679  4     2     |
 | 569   2     8     | 3     7     4     | 69    59    1     |
 | 157   4     137   | 6     9     2     | 378   57   #58    |
 *-----------------------------------------------------------*

OK, with all this new knowledge, let me now try an “externals” approach on AUR(56)r12c29 ala Ted's methodology.
Choose (6)r7c2 to cover the UR 6s in c2. The UR 5s in c2 are empty of externals.
Choose (5)r9c9 to cover the UR 5s in c9. The UR 6s in c9 are empty of externals.
I think that covers all 8 UR digits. Now form the SIS and aim, say, for Luke's elimination:
Code: Select all
    UR
    ||
(6)r7c2-(9)r7c2=(9)r2c2---(9)r2c8
    ||   
(5)r9c9-(5=9)r8c8---------(9)r2c8; ste

Or use the SIS to develop a single AIC:
Code: Select all
(9)r2c2=(9)r7c2-(6)r7c2=(5)r9c9-(5=9)r8c8 => r2c8<>9; ste


SteveC
Sudtyro2
 
Posts: 754
Joined: 15 April 2013

Re: June 26, 2014

Postby tlanglet » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:30 pm

Steve, both of your solutions are correct. However, it would help readers understand the third step of the AIC better by including the AUR reference such as:
(9)r2c2=(9)r7c2-AUR(56)r12c29[6r7c2=5r9c9]-(5=9)r8c8 => r2c8<>9; ste

Another possible solution using external inferences is:
AUR(56)r12c29[6r7c2=5r9c9]-(5=9)r8c8-9r23c8=9r3c7-(9=176)r3c1,r2c3,r1c1 => r1c2,r78c1<>6

Or how about mixed internal,9r2c2, & external,5r9c9, inferences
AUR(56)r12c29[9r2c2=5r9c9]-(5=9)r8c8 =>r2c8<>9

Ted
tlanglet
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 538
Joined: 29 May 2010

Re: June 26, 2014

Postby David P Bird » Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:36 am

The expanded notation I gave before can be condensed in stages like this:

A: (8)r1c9 = (56)r1c29 -[UR]- (56)r2c29 = (9)r2c2
B: (8=56)r1c29 -[UR]- (56=9)r2c29
C: (8)r1c9 =[(56)UR:r12c29]= (9)r2c2

Which of B and C is shorter depends on whether the disruptors are internal or external.

There are two objectives for a notation:
1. To allow the reader to follow the logic used
2. To be succinct

The first of these is the dominant one, but it depends to some extent on how experienced the target reader is. It's quite a task for a novice to be able to follow the notation for a new method but, surprisingly, as soon as that has been accomplished, these difficulties are forgotten and the temptation is to make the notation as terse as possible. This may save the author time and paper but it is the reader who pays the price, particularly those novice lurkers we hope will soon join us.

Considering the effort that went into finding the solution, surely it's worth a few more seconds and a bit more screen space (it's not paper we're wasting) for one writer to make it easier for hopefully many readers. A writer who disregards this effectively sends the message that his time is more precious than anyone else's.

Thefisrtthingthattendstohappenisthatwhitespaceisremoved. This makes it more difficult to follow and, as the reader flicks from the notation to the grid and back again, it makes it difficult to return to the right place.

I've given sermons on this theme before but I feel I'm preaching to a hostile audience, so won't go on to detail other points. However I do suggest that people should remember their own initial difficulties when notating their solutions and before introducing yet another pet notation variation.
David P Bird
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: 16 September 2008
Location: Middle England

Re: June 26, 2014

Postby eleven » Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:24 am

David P Bird wrote:
eleven wrote:My 2 cents:
DP 56r12c29 => r1c2<>6, r2c9<>5, stte

Eleven, are you Uruguayan by any chance?

A pattern is a pattern is a pattern (and i don't call Denis' chains patterns).

Code: Select all
 A:ab ---a--- abX
   |          |
   a          b
   |          |
  abY ---b---B:ab
=> A<>b, B<>a

Any problem with that ?
eleven
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: 10 February 2008

Re: June 26, 2014

Postby David P Bird » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:05 am

Eleven, my previous post on notation relates here. Your solution quotes a Deadly Pattern but doesn't say why it produces the eliminations you derive from it, so it doesn't help much.

Now there are two possibilities:
    1. You looked up this particular pattern in a pattern list to obtain these eliminations, in which case you should give its type number.
    2. You analysed the pattern yourself to derive them, in which case you should show your logic.
However you did neither!

I'm pleased that we agree that Denis's chains aren't patterns, but we could argue forever about what the defining attributes of a pattern are! A more practical approach is the check if the pattern is named in a list of those that have been previously accepted by consensus.

As my response to you revealed, I've been following the World Cup which tainted my reply which I was trying to make humorous – I hope it didn't give offence.
David P Bird
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: 16 September 2008
Location: Middle England

Re: June 26, 2014

Postby eleven » Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:53 pm

No problem, i thought everybody would see the pattern - at least Danny had shown the strong links.

Go Costa Rica go - pura vida.
eleven
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: 10 February 2008

Re: June 26, 2014

Postby DonM » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:57 pm

David P Bird wrote:The first of these is the dominant one, but it depends to some extent on how experienced the target reader is. It's quite a task for a novice to be able to follow the notation for a new method but, surprisingly, as soon as that has been accomplished, these difficulties are forgotten and the temptation is to make the notation as terse as possible. This may save the author time and paper but it is the reader who pays the price, particularly those novice lurkers we hope will soon join us.

Considering the effort that went into finding the solution, surely it's worth a few more seconds and a bit more screen space (it's not paper we're wasting) for one writer to make it easier for hopefully many readers. A writer who disregards this effectively sends the message that his time is more precious than anyone else's.

Thefisrtthingthattendstohappenisthatwhitespaceisremoved. This makes it more difficult to follow and, as the reader flicks from the notation to the grid and back again, it makes it difficult to return to the right place.

I've given sermons on this theme before but I feel I'm preaching to a hostile audience, so won't go on to detail other points. However I do suggest that people should remember their own initial difficulties when notating their solutions and before introducing yet another pet notation variation.


Well said. I've also given sermons on the same theme.
DonM
2013 Supporter
 
Posts: 487
Joined: 13 January 2008

Re: June 26, 2014

Postby daj95376 » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:58 pm

eleven wrote:
Code: Select all
 A:ab ---a--- abX
   |          |
   a          b
   |          |
  abY ---b---B:ab
=> A<>b, B<>a

Any problem with that ?

No problem ... BUT ... the pattern could be more general.

Code: Select all
  abW ---a--- abX
  |            |
  a            b
  |            |
  abY ---b--- abZ

=> abW<>b, abZ<>a

Now, it's 2x occurrences of this Mike Barker pattern.

Code: Select all
--- UR+4C/3SL: the links with equal labels share a node => "b" can be removed from "abZ"

abX-----abZ
     a   |
        a|
     b   |
abY-----abW

_
daj95376
2014 Supporter
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: 15 May 2006

Previous

Return to Puzzles